Helicopter Performance abuse?
In the 139 thread I wrote the following (in Italics) but feel it is worthy of discussion in the context of Savoia's accident data as the subject seems to be one that is glossed over by many pilots that I meet whilst doing recurrent and TR training on the 139. The original was a response by Arcal 76 who got my attention when he described the extremes he is expected to go to when doing his day-to-day job. Avoiding accidents doesn't require you to emulate the Test Pilot but it does require you to say 'NO' every now and then. We have, I believe, a mindset worthy of change and don't think for one moment that the application of Cat A will make accidents go away.
Arcal 76
Quote:
We use 102% for all take-off and landing including a "vertical cat.B take-off"created from nowhere by our company because the aircraft is to heavy.When you are above 6400 kg all time in Summer, of course it is difficult to comply with a cat.A profile and you become creative.
The 139 was designed to deliver Cat A at a sensible mass (read payloads). The sad thing is that whilst we don't see too many helicopter accidents caused by engine failures during take off or landing, we do see many accidents caused by pilots who, for whatever reason, take off at a mass that is too great for the manoeuvre they wish to perform.
The three elements of Cat A operation are mass, profile and obstacle environment. If you want to pick just one then make it the mass. If you have to operate above that (Cat B), or use a higher TDP/LDP then use a profile you are familiar with (sim training should condition you to react quickly and correctly if you have an engine failure at a critical moment). Under Cat A a rejected take off should result in no damage to airframe or passengers. It would be reasonable to suggest that experience gained to date (Malaysia) indicates that a reject above a Cat A weight may damage the airframe but the excellent crashworthiness properties built into the 139 will protect the occupants provided the gear is down and the landing is made in a level-ish attitude.
In all of this we must not loose sight of the fact that Cat A is just one element in any risk-assessment process and whether the pilot realises it or not every take-off or landing manoeuvre should be risk assessed. There are many occasions when working offshore or HEMS or even VIP/corporate where you are required to operate to and/or from unfamiliar or challenging (offshore with complex obstacle environment) sites and the risk assessment may place a slow and gentle arrival above any Cat A considerations. Cat A is just one tool in the toolbox.
In the end if you are having to do extraordinary things to get the job done you may just be working a little too close to the edge. Satisfying when you succeed but not what you Safety Manager wants to hear about.
G.